Thoughts on the Nu-cu-lar Option

I hope Will Ferrell plays Bill Frist in the movie.

Of course then they'd have to swap the filibuster protection / removal perspectives between parties, but who's going to care about factual accuracy after watching Will Ferrell for six hours straight? He could get Frank-the-Tank-esquely drunk for an hour, publicly urinate on the floor of the (movie) Senate, then streak. Who doesn't want to see that?

(Honestly, it's not like that would be any more embarrassing for our country than Strom Thurmond filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes. That's the current record. Unfortunately for Strom, it passed anyway.)

And besides, don't the Republicans want to be funny?

I doubt they'd mind the swap, since Republicans have been retreating from the "nuclear option" terminology ever since they brought it up. But if they hadn't, if this flap was called the "Impending Senate Rules Change Debate," would it be getting anywhere near the level of publicity it is now?

Plus their flock seems to like the wording.

I get the impression the religious right is only too happy to strip the minority party of any say in government, which is strange because they present themselves as a persecuted minority... Also strange because, well, it hardly seems very Jesus-y, with "blessed are the meek," and all that.

I know I deride the WWJD meme a lot, but it would be nice if those who claimed to speak for Jesus actually considered it now and again.


Hm... Scattered thoughts much? It's been that kind of a week for me.

For a more serious primer on all of this, check out Tim Grieve's Salon.com piece here. The section on what might happen if... is fascinating in a weirdly wonkish, or possibly wankish, kind of way.

Okay, one more thought: Is it possible that whoever termed it the nuclear option was just hoping to re-inject the proper pronunciation of "nuclear" into the news? It doesn't keep me up nights, but I do wonder.